It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nato-led forces killed BBC reporter in Afghanistan

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Nato-led forces killed BBC reporter in Afghanistan


www.bbc.co.uk

The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan has admitted it mistakenly killed BBC reporter Ahmed Omed Khpulwak in July.

Isaf said a US soldier mistook the Pashto service journalist for an insurgent when troops responded to a militant attack in the town of Tarin Kowt in southern Uruzgan province.

Khpulwak was one of 19 people killed.

Nato launched an inquiry after initial reports that Khpulwak had been killed by insurgents were questioned.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Too many friendly fires are happening in this war, along with civilian deaths. This man was press, many of these reporters have a bullet proof vest with the words "PRESS" on the front/back. It is not clear if this man was wearing one at the time, but he did have a press ID.
The text messages from the reporter are quite haunting, "Khpulwak reportedly sent his brother two text messages at the time. The first read: "I am hiding. Death has come." In the second, he wrote: "Pray for me if I die."

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Seriously who in their right minds sends a middle eastern looking man as a correspondent in a middle eastern warzone?
edit on 8/9/2011 by BarmyBilly because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
54 war correspondents were killed in action in WWII.

54 War Correspondents KIA

It is a dangerous business, mainly because they are in the action, in a war.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BarmyBilly
 


Most likely so it would reduce the risk of a kidnapping/targeting by the opposition.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BarmyBilly
Seriously who in their right minds sends a middle eastern looking man as a correspondent in a middle eastern warzone?
edit on 8/9/2011 by BarmyBilly because: (no reason given)


Yea and to be killed not as just catching a stray round but shot by a soilder....the guy must have had on the garb of the fighters.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Yea and to be killed not as just catching a stray round but shot by a soilder....the guy must have had on the garb of the fighters.


Or the soldier was incompetent and shot anything that moved. American forces have been shown time and time again they have a shoot 1st think later policy.


The BBC are stupid in that they are so PC that they send Asians to Asian events, blacks to African events etc. but Im sure the soldier would have shot a white man too.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 



Or the soldier was incompetent and shot anything that moved. American forces have been shown time and time again they have a shoot 1st think later policy.


Yes, that's generally how it goes. When someone pops up from behind a berm with an object leveled at you, you have less than a second to react before you find out who he is aiming at. When you see a telescopic object peeking from a window - you shoot before you or your buddy is on the receiving end of a bullet.

It's always nice to apply this: "He had a press ID" - yes... let's ask everyone to stop shooting and show their IDs. Or the "make sure you are shooting the right person" - when you simply sit back and look at the reports coming in.

It's quite a bit different when it's your ass that might be catching the bullet. The casualties who come back? The dead men used to lobby against wars? Many of them hesitated - wanted to make sure they weren't shooting some confused citizen.

Many of the ones who come back, alive, get to have more than a few unpleasant memories of shooting someone who didn't need to be shot.

It is war. It kind of sucks like that.

Best advice? If you hear gunfire and don't want to catch a bullet - become very intimate with the ground and avoid sudden movements of any kind.

If it's your job to report on it... don't be surprised when you catch a raw deal. Kind of how it goes. Particularly if you're embedded with insurgents....



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
It's just another case of American forces killing Brits again, it doesn't even shock / suprise me anymore.

I don't hate Americans, I like Americans, I just wish they would train their troops to be a bit less trigger happy.

Oh well, NEXT.........



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Or maybe dont shoot anyone who doesnt have a gun, RPG and isnt running towards you like they have a bomb.

The moral part of the brain is brainwashed out of US troops, this was shown on a Horizon program a couple of days ago, thats why so many of them are abusive when they go home, why they murder so many innocents and why they kill anything that moves, including fellow soldiers.

They are trained not to think.

www.bbc.co.uk...


edit on 8-9-2011 by Flyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 



Or maybe dont shoot anyone who doesnt have a gun, RPG and isnt running towards you like they have a bomb.


How good are you at flash-cards?

Most people have reaction times measured in seconds. Engagement takes place at dozens of meters.

You don't have time to sit, squint, and analyze everything that is popping up from the general area where enemy fire is coming from.


The moral part of the brain is brainwashed out of US troops,


No, your analytical skills are simply lacking.


thats why so many of them are abusive when they go home, why they murder so many innocents and why they kill anything that moves, including fellow soldiers.


This baloney needs some sauce.

Spousal abuse and crime rates among the military are statistically lower than the national average. When compared against other demographics (economic classifications, ethnicity, etc) - the military doesn't perform as well as the "independently wealthy" crowd tends to, but substantially better than low income and young adults (interesting as many in the military are from lower income backgrounds and under the age of 30).

Of course - internal demographics of the military also change dramatically. Your highest crime and misconduct rates are in your E-3 and below crowd, as most of them are on their first enlistment. Rates plummet when you get into those who have re-enlisted; often your E-5+


They are trained not to think.


They are trained to react. It's part of any martial arts program. You don't have time to think about such a dynamically evolving situation. Logic is too easily confounded by the rapidly developing atmosphere and simply takes orders of magnitude longer to arrive at a conclusion than instinct.

Part of the training is not just how to instinctively shoot at things - but how to instinctively prioritize targets and non-combatants. Special Forces get into this much more than your average soldier, as they are the ones called for hostage rescue and other sensitive operations - but the concept has been being passed on to the infantry in both Army and Marines.

There is, however, always a margin of error and a lack of information to be accounted for.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
He must of said something though, in a situation like this he must of shouted something or said something because he was generally stressed an worried, i would of though his accent would of given away that he was British.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Trolloks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


Unless you've ever experienced any of this in reality, I don't think you have much to say on the subject. I'd like to see how you react after a little bit of training and then dropped into a hostile area and see what you end up shooting.

I'm definitely not trying to justify the soldiers here, but in war friendly fire happens. And when you're a scared G.I., placed in an environment that want's nothing more then to see you dead, you get jumpy. Best way to avoid this is to not go to war and meddle with everyone elses business.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Frontkjemper
 


The thing is though, all the friendly fire comes from USA soldiers, not the French, English or anyone else involved in the war. Something needs to be done about the USA tactics, its been too many for the army to turn a blind eye, these people are meant to be trained to value and protect civilian lives as well as their allies, too many of them are failing. Everyone else seems to be doing the job fine, but USA soldiers are just taking the p*ss if you don't mind me saying. Not all, not even the majority, but just the few. Maybe its the training, maybe its the individules, none the less something needs to be done.

The British are not all that shiny either, we've just gotten into trouble for abusing and tourtoring people in Iraq, one civilian was killed by us in capture. This should not be happening, no excuse.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Trolloks
 



The thing is though, all the friendly fire comes from USA soldiers, not the French, English or anyone else involved in the war.


www.liveleak.com...

There are plenty of other countries that get involved in the fray.

The thing is, however, that the U.S. has like 10x the number of soldiers on the ground and carrying out operations at any given time.


Something needs to be done about the USA tactics, its been too many for the army to turn a blind eye, these people are meant to be trained to value and protect civilian lives as well as their allies, too many of them are failing.


No - soldiers are sent in to kill things. The only way you can use soldiers to effectively protect something/someone is to draw a line and say "do not shoot at stuff on this side of the line."

I would, honestly, like to see the next Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc have random civilians, embedded reporters, etc running about or hiding out with the enemy you are fighting. Perhaps have the occasional "friendly" from another nation firing away from time to time.

No IFF in the game - no little blue dots to indicate friendlies, reds for enemies, etc. Just have people and a set of iron-sights (none of that 'crosshair-in-vision' bull# - iron sights, ACOGs, and scopes only).

Then, track everyone's kill record online and see how many cases of friendly fire occur, despite the fact it's a game (with a pause feature, so you can stop to squint at things or think about what uniform that gunman on the roof is wearing - and why he is shooting at you) and a rigorous training program was instituted in the beginning of the game.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   


The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan has admitted it mistakenly killed BBC reporter Ahmed Omed Khpulwak in July.


Because he knew too much of what NATO did not want being made public.

I think NATO would rationalize that one persons death is worth major trade deals in the future.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Why dismiss something when the marines say its true, the link proved it.

Its the reason why some idiot used grenades on a hostage rescue mission...and killed the hostage and why another idiot shot down a british jet (returning at the correct speed and altitude) despite their never being an enemy aircraft in the sky.

Neither of those example are split second reactions in the face of death. They are just trained badly.

Remember the NFL player that was shot dead by an American? For every life taken like that, there are lots and lots hushed up by the American government, it only comes out when its a foreigner taken out.

Theres a saying thats been around since the world wars.

When the British shoot, the Germans duck
When they Germans shoot, the British duck
When the Americans shoot, everyone ducks.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 



When the British shoot, the Germans duck
When they Germans shoot, the British duck
When the Americans shoot, everyone ducks.


I wonder why Brits never stop getting over friendly fire incidents. Actually everyone "ducked thingy" nonsense was made by a British reporter some years and this was made popular among the British media. in WW2, The British killed over 308 Americans in a training execise and British troops were bombed by RAF bombers in Burma and El-Alamein. The fact is that the British have plenty of friendly fire incidents too in Iraq and Afghanistan, only the difference it had ground to ground incidents. The fact is that they had been more British on British KIA than Americans killed the British. The difference we killed the Brits on air-to-ground bases. As i recall the BBC reporter that was shot dead was an Arab and British troops killed plenty of Afghan soldiers who also mistook them for suicide bombers as well. You think you guys are better than the U.S? The U.S. had a higher rate because we had more troops than all NATO nations combined yet the British had plenty of FFs as well. The difference is that British had a lot of ground to ground bases. The Brits also killed plenty of Afghans as well.


British troops were accidentally fired upon by Afghan forces in Helmand at least 19 times over three-and-a-half years, military incident logs reveal.

Four of the so-called friendly-fire incidents resulted in casualties, although none fatal, it was disclosed after a Freedom of Information request.

Between January 2008 and June 2009, Afghan personnel came under friendly-fire by UK troops at least 10 times.

Also, 21 Afghan interpreters for UK forces have been killed since 2006.

British forces mistakenly firing at Afghan soldiers, police and security service officials, resulted in seven deaths.

Incidents investigated the most serious incident, in the Lashkar Gah district of Helmand in October 2008, saw three Afghan National Police officers killed and one seriously injured when British troops opened fire on them.

None of the extracts from official files, released by the Ministry of Defence, record any UK personnel being killed or seriously injured during the friendly-fire incidents.

These details were released by the military's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) based at Northwood in Middlesex, after the FoI request by the Press Association.

PJHQ stressed that the information released was incomplete, saying: "It includes only those events which were raised by the UK task force as significant incidents and categorised correctly.

"It is entirely possible that the detail reported may subsequently have been subject to change or clarification, or that additional incidents will have occurred which have not been captured here."

A Ministry of Defence said: "Any friendly-fire incident is one too many and thankfully such events are isolated and extremely rare - particularly as the vast majority of UK and Afghan forces operate alongside each other on a daily basis and in many cases live and work together.

"When such an incident is suspected to have taken place it is thoroughly investigated by commanders on the ground."

Interpreter deaths
Meanwhile, as the result of another FoI request, it has been revealed that three Afghan interpreters have died and 19 been wounded in the course of their duties for British forces this year.

British forces in Afghanistan employed 650 local interpreters in mid-July, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said.

A spokesman added: "The death of any individual working in the service of the country is a matter of deep regret and we are grateful to those individuals and their families for their sacrifice.

"In the event of the death of an interpreter, a payment is made to their next-of-kin in addition to any outstanding wages and annual leave payment, which is also paid."


www.bbc.co.uk...


edit on 10-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join